The Lebanon express. (Lebanon, Linn County, Or.) 1887-1898, 1887-04-30
NO. g..
INTERESTING DECISION.
Persons Bitten by Dogs Entitled to Recover
Damages From Their Owners.

Damages From Their Owners.
In the State Us. M'Dermott the New
jersey Supreme Court holds that per-
son bitten by dog may recover dam
ages from the owner. upon evidence
that the dog. with the knowledge of
the owner, had mischievous tendency
to bite. whether in anger or not In
either ease the persons bitten would
suffer injury. A mischievous propen-
sity, from which injury is the natural
result. In the case of Hudson Us. Rob
erts, Exch. 699, it appears that the
plaintiff was walking in the street
wearing a red handkerchief The bull
of defendant. ordinarily gentle and
quiet, and not known to have gored
any person previously, was being driven
along the street when he attacked and
gored the plaintiff. The defendant said
that the red handkerchief did it, and
that he knew the bull would
run at any thing red. The plaintiff re-
covered. The bull had no hostile feel
ing against the man he injured. and no
disposition to gore mankind, but be-
cause of his mischieyous propensity to
rush at a red object. of which his own
er knew. It was held that when he
caused injury to plaintiff. through that
propensity. his owner should pay dam
ages. A domesticated bear may hug
man until his ribs be broken.
This may be the mode adopted by the
animal 10 manifest his affection; yet if
he had ON other occasions previously
shown his affection in that way, causing
injury. and his owner knew of such
/ propensity; the owner would have to
/ pay damages caused By breaking the
man 5 ribs. 1t is true that the bear is
classed with animals tere nature, and
that the presumption, in such case,
| would be that although domesticated,
/ the animal had relapsed into his wild
/ habits. yet although the presumption
on the question of scieRter would
/ be against the owner, he might
/ be able to prove that the
habit of embracing persons did
! not proceed from the savage nature
/ of the bear, but. under the influence of
/ civilization. from cultivated affection
But this proof would be held to be mis-
/ ehieyous, because hurtful to those who
were the objects of the bears affection
In the ease of Oaks Is Spaulding, 40
/ Vt S47. it appeared that Mrs Oaks was
/ driving cows home from pasture. when
the ram of Spaulding attacked and in
jured her. II was shown that the rain
had propensity To butt mankind. and
that the defendant knew it, bat it did
not appear whether the previous but
tings by the ram proceeded from an
ugly disposition. or from the exuber-
anee of a playful spirit: yet it was held
that the defendant was liable. 1t did
not cure the hurt nor assuage the pain
of the woman to be told that the ram
when he butted her. WAS only IN one of
his accustomed sportive moods 1t
might have been fun for the ram. but it
was hurtful to Mrs. Oaks. 1t was
mischievous propensity. whether pro-
ceed;ng from ugliness of temper or from
good nature. which, if known to the
owner of the ram, made him liable for
damages resulting from such propen-
sity. There Is no doubt that in cases of
animals not naturally inclined to do
mischief previous mischieyous propen-
sity mast be shown, and the scienter
clearly established The gist of the
action is not the keeping of the animal,
but the keeping with knowledge of mis-
ehieyous propensity. whether proceed
ing from a savage disposition or not.
The conclusion is that the plaintiff be-
low having shown by his proof that on
several previous occasions the dog in
question had bitten various persons on
the hand. with knowledge of the de
fendant, he was entitled TO recover.
even if the habit did not proceed from a
/. ferocious nature, but was the result of a
misehievous propensity.-N Y. Chris
tian 4dr0cate.